DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490
TAL
Docket No: 7487-12
10 May 2013
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10, United
States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 8 May 2013. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations
of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with
administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the
proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by
the Board consisted of your application, together with all
material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and
applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient
to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
You enlisted in the Marine Corps and began a period of active
duty on 5 October 1966 at age 18. On 5 June1969, you received
nonjudicial punishment (NUP) for unauthorized absence (UA) your
unit for a period of 80 days. On 30 June 1969, you were UA from
your unit until you were apprehended on 21 January L370, a
period of 205 days. On 2 March 1970, you were UA from your unit
for a period of two days. On 15 April 1970, you made a written
request for discharge for the good of service to avoid trial by
court-martial for UA from your unit for the forgoing periods.
On 17 April 1970, the separation authority disapproved your
request and directed that you be retained in the Marine Corps.
On 30 March 1970, you were again UA from your unit until you
were apprehended on 10 December 1970, by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), in Bridgeport, Ohio. On 23 December 1970,
you again made a written request for discharge for the good of
the service to avoid trial by court-martial for UA from your
unit for periods totaling 462 days. Prior to submitting this
request you conferred with a qualified military lawyer at which
time you were advised of your rights and warned of the probable
adverse consequences of accepting such a discharge. Your good
of the service request was granted and the separation authority
directed your other than honorable (OTH) discharge. As a result
of this action, you were spared the stigma of a court-martial
conviction and the potential penalties of a punitive discharge
and confinement at hard labor. On 8 January 1971, you were
discharged under OTH conditions.
The Board, in its review of your entire record and application
carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as
your youth, overall record and Vietnam combat service.
Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not
sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given
the seriousness and repetitiveness of your misconduct that
resulted in an NUP, periods of UA totaling over one year and
three months and request for discharge. The Board believed that
considerable clemency was extended to you when your request for
discharge to avoid trial by court-martial was approved.
Further, the Board concluded that you received the benefit of
your bargain with the Marine Corps when your request fer
discharge was granted and should not be permitted to change it
now. Finally, there is no provision of law or in Navy
regulations that allows for the recharacterization of service
due solely to the passage of time. Accordingly, your application
has been denied. The names and votes of the members of the
panel will be furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that
a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official.
naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.
Sincerely,
\y Qe Lr
W. DEAN PFET
Executive Direc
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 02555-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 November 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR8218 13
_A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval . Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 September 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 06023-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval | Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 April 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge given the seriousness of your...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 04352-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR2755-13
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 5 February 2014. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07236-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 27 May 2010. After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 00624 12
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 October 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. On 4 June 1970, you submitted a written request for an other than honorable (OTH) discharge in order to avoid trial by court- martial for two...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 06269-10
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 March 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 03584-09
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 January 2010. On 22 November 1968, you received NUP for UA from you appointed place of duty. On 28 May 1970 you were 8O discharged.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09118-10
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Your request for discharge was granted and on 4 June 1971, you received an other than honorable discharge (OTH) for the good of service to avoid trial by court-martial. Nevertheless, the Board concluded these factors were not sufficient to warrant recharacterization of your discharge...